3 observation/3 questions-Tyler Olsen

One observation I have, especially regarding the rapid prototyping and CAD assisted sculpture is the apparent limitlessness of the potential for sculpture. Without the traditional restraints sculpture has historically held, the art form seems to be moving toward completely conceptual, or idea based work. Like the way of looking at, or thinking about art introduced by the Dadaists, anything can be art. With CAD/rapid prototyping the ability of the art to convey the idea seems less difficult, and the importance of the idea itself seems greater.

A related question I have is; what will the future hold for artistic ideas generally? With the apparent limitless capability of digital art, and assuming that the extent of limitlessness continues to expand, where will the art world go in the digital realm, how far from object, and how deep into psyche can it go and still be considered art?

Regarding the installation style pieces that attempt to blend virtual space with real and architectural space, the emphasis on interaction and user input seems to be a strong step toward virtual reality generally. The artworld seems to be exploring displacement and alternate forms of reality through new digital media. The references to digital space as not space as we know it at all, but as a new form of space are intriguing, because that seems to indicate there is a whole new dimension in which artists can explore space issues, as they have historically with sculpture and other visual arts. Again reference to the psychological and the idea seem really important.

If digital space is more like consciousness than real space, as some authors and artists that Paul references suggest, what does that mean for the union of digital and physical? How does the physical world play a role in virtual space, and vice versa? In what ways are these two things likely to merge in the future, are artists just working toward virtual reality, and if/when that happens, will (can) it still be art?

Early on in the book, Paul talks about the limitations of digital art when met with the high speed of technological development. This potential for obsolescence is something that is immediately obvious with digital art. When considering the historical narrative of digital art she provides it is hard to conceive of many of the historically important works as being still valuable or appreciable as art today, except as stepping-stones for what exists now. The aesthetics of digital art must be indefinable in such a rapidly developing medium.

Are all these digital art works doomed from the beginning because they will eventually be seen as outdated? Is it possible for digital art to be timeless in the sense of many traditional forms of art? And finally is there a digital aesthetic that is constant, or is it always changing with the change of technology? Is change, or to be cutting edge, the condition of the aesthetics of digital art? Must it be?